This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 12:20, March 23, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Hm, as much as I love the Heian period, I think the "period" part is written small in English. Anyone feel free to object obviously, but this is not a full name per se, it describes the era of Heian. Gryffindor 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

When was the second large eruption from Mt. fujiyama? What destroy did it do?

Please don't say Mt. Fujiyama, it's both redundant and incorrect. Say either Mt. Fuji or Fuji-san, or just Fuji even. It's not that I'm keen on pointing out mistakes, it's just that I live here, that I hike, and that I can see Fuji every clear day from the office, and Fujiyama grates like fingernails on a blackboard. Cheers Vincent 06:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article should include basic information such as: "Heian-jidai". The period from 794 to 1185 in Japanese history. The movement of the capital from Nara to Kyoto (then known as Heiankyo) in 794 marks its beginning just as the establishment of the shogunate government of Minamoto Yoritomo in Kamakura marks its end. This period of Japanese history was relatively peaceful and saw the flowering of art and culture. While many elements of life at the Imperial court were refined to the point of bizarre abstraction, the study of Chinese literature and the creation of Japanese literature flourished.

Inevitably associated with this time are Lady Murasaki Shikibu's "Genji Monogatari" or "The Tale of Genji" and Sei Shonagon's "Makura no Sôshi."

"hiragana (平仮名), a cursive form of katakana" is stated in the 'Fujiwara Regency' section It does not indicate in either the Hiragana or katakana article that hiragana is merely a cursive form of katakana and according to japanese writing systems they are seperate scripts which evolved indidually from man'yōgana. Are the other articles incorrect/incomplete or is this a mis-statement in this article? Stardust8212 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

they actually are derived from two separate sets of Chinese characters, and so aren't really different forms of each other. However, hiragana is written in a more cursive style than katakana. See the article on manyogana for details. brain 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For length, detail, and overall balance, I think this easily deserves a B-class rating. But it remains my firm belief that these types of articles, on such an incredibly broad and important topic can always be expanded. LordAmeth 06:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a message, primarily to Gwern, about the edits regarding the proper end date of the Heian period. First, Gwern, the fact that you are citing the Encyclopedia Brittanica as ending all debate regarding a question about Japanese history strongly suggests that you have little experience with Japanese history. The Encyclopedia Brittanica is notoriously outdated and poorly written on the subject. The best sources are, of course, Japanese language sources, but there are far better English sources, like the Cambridge History of Japan. Second, regardless of the source you are citing, you have no authority to declare that those who disagree with you and change your edits are engaging in vandalism, just because you happen to disagree with them. Citing 1192 as the end date of the Heian period is actually not at all odd or unusual, although in the end, I agree that it should be 1185 (and the EB surprisingly gets this one right).

Now, for a little more background. Historical periods are, by definition, arbitrary, and their boundaries are subject to change, depending on the views of the historian you are dealing with and as our understanding of history changes. For example, does the Nara period end in 792, just because that is when the Heian period begins (when Emperor Kammu moved the capital to the Heian-kyo), or does it end in 784 when the capital was moved from Nara (the location that defines the Nara period) to a location closer to where the Heian-kyo was located)? There is no clear answer, and different historians have different opinions. As for the Heian period, it is generally defined as beginning in 792 and ending when the Kamakura Bakufu was established. So the question then becomes, when was the Kamakura bakufu established. Many people in Japan are taught in school (and therefore, many authorities will also claim) that it began in 1192, when Minamoto Yoritomo was appointed seii tai shogun. This is the source of the 1192 date. However, some more thoughtful historians are trying to redefine when the Kamakura bakufu began. Although the appointment of Yoritomo as Shogun is a very visible and poignant event to use as the boundary, some claim that it was actually established earlier; for example, in 1183, when Yoritomo's authority over the eastern lands was recognized, or in 1185, when he established the shugo/jito system of administration. The point is, there is no clear answer to the question. The thoughtful edit here would be to keep the 1185 (which most Japanese historians seem to be leaning toward as the better answer) and acknowledge the other dates and why they may not be the best choice., either in the text or in a footnote. The answer certainly is not to proclaim yourself the final arbiter merely because you were able to look something up in an encyclopedia.-Jefu 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to scan through this article and add necessary references to some of the sentences/paragraphs; only altering what is necessary to maintain a relative flow, would it be okay to footnote facts which can be clearly linked to scholarly content? Sergei146 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also strongly advocate the splitting of the history, which currently pertains to describe military, political, social and cultural history, at best in a rather confusing manner, into more clearly defined sections. Admittedly the military and political histories are intricately linked; however, I perceive that it would be reasonable to bulk out the cultural history section by shifting away the development of language to just before the literature. Given that our main sources of understanding the culture and language of this period are texts such as Genji monogatari, it stands to reason that this connection should be made more apparent for those not necessarily well-versed in Japanese history. A more substantial introduction to shoen and a greater consideration of the insei system would clearly also benefit this article. Sergei146 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was assessed C-class for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Coverage is also somewhat lacking, though I realize it may be difficult to adequately cover the ancient time period, and I concluded that the coverage, as it is now, is adequate for B-class criteria. However, if any editor has adequate sources, the article would benefit from more description concerning the commoner classes. For example, under the section Heian Beauty, it describes the use of make-up and the 12-layer dress (junihitoe), but that only accounts for the formal dress of 2,500 people out of a total of 5 million! (Numbers taken from the section Heian Economics; aristocrats = 5,000, so the women are about half that...) Surely they didn't all dress in silk 12-layer robes. What was worn by the rest of the 4,997,500 people? Boneyard90 (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)